The Spanish memorial of 4th June considered [microform]

SPANISH MEMORIAL

of 4th June
| CONSIDERED, 4
Bitar by “4

uf

LONDON,

Printed by’ GEORGE BIGG, 1799,

AndSold by P. ELMSLY, Strand; J.SEWELL, Corahill;
and J. STOCKDALE, Piccadilly.

4
ES

Bi ales esc or the Ge | a ae ~ Sete Se
ra See WES Neen ec bess i

1ft Aug. 1790.

The Spanise Memoriay of 4" June
Confidered.

In a meafure fo important as a War,
between two powerful Nations, in which
multitudes muft fall, whatever be the
ultimate Event! and in which, Calamities,
worfe than Death, muft enfue! It would
be extremely mortifying to fuppofe that the
Ignorance, Arrogance or Infolence of Officers
of either Government, had involved the
two Countries, frantickly into Hoftilities,
contrary to their mutual Interefts, and
fubverfive of the Principles of Humanity !

I truft, both Countries have too much

Liberality and Sagacity to be carried
B blindfolded

if
\

He
ia

( 4)
blindfolded into fuch a Conteft: But, it
appears to me, from the Spanifh Memorial,
that the True Grounds, on the part of
Great Britain, for demanding Satisfattion,

have not been underftood,

1. An Englifh Veffel, the Princefs Royal,
in every manner unexceptionable, fitted
out from England, publickly in 1786,
with the permifion of the South-Sea-
Company, and of the Eaft-India-Company,
for a Voyage to the NW Coaft of America
and China; and back to the NW Coaft
of America: is feized, in 1789, at, or
near, King-George’s-Sound, or Nootka, on the
Coaft of New Albion, by the Spaniards,
without The Court of Madrid having
even given any previous intimation to The

Court of Great Britain, that they claimed
the

Oe,

Ba Rie Te

*
ae
ahs
ch
fg
¢
Bi
4
Y 4
:
HM
SB
Be
ig

. $2

the tole Navigation of thofe Seas, although
two Ships had, in the fame publick manner,
gone, from England in 1785, on that

Voyage.

2. That the Commander of another
Englith Veffel, the Argonaut, Capt. Colnett,
who bore H. B. Majefty’s Commiffion,
as a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy, was
ignominioufly put in the Stocks; and treated

with indignities, contrary to the rules of

War, and the cuftom of civilized Nations.

2, And that H. C. Majefty’s Naval

3.
Officer, who was gutilty of thefe enormities,
to mark his Infult to the Britifh Nation
in the moft pointed manner, at the fame
time, not only permitted ¢cvo American
Veffels to remain unmolefted, but celebrated,

Ba with

FG Ha
with every mark of publick rejoicing, the
Anniverfary of the Separation of the Anglo-
American Colonies from the Mother Country:
Whilft the Britifh Flag was ignominioufly
ftruck by H. C. Majefty’s Officer, in time
of profound peace, and the Spanifh Flag
hoifted over it; the known expreffion of

Conqueft in War.

So flagrant an Act of National Degra-
dation is not lightly done away, but as the
Infult and Injury was publick, the Satif-
faction and Atonement muft be publick!
And it is This Atonement The Britith
Nation is entitled to expect, before They
enter into any Difcuffion whatever: It is
this Senfe of Infulted Honour that equips
their Fleets! to demand of Spain that
Reparation which is due to Aéts committed

under

~

(er

ph

Petition se aie Read

| (7)
ne under the Sanétion of the Spanifh Court!
O- b, The Law of Nations making the Go-

vernment anfwerable for every thing, done

Bi

=

ly : by Officers acting under Its Authority :
1¢ becaufe if the State could throw the im-
ag putation on the Individual, there could
of | be no means of obtaining Redrefs: and
; by the extent of Lofs which the State

fuffers for reparation; It is made attentive

a- % to reftrain, by condign punifhment, the
e inordinancy of Its Officers! and the un-
| ae : tran{ereffing Subject, of every State, is fe-
! cured from injury and ruin; Referring
| ‘ the Settlement of any contefted Claims,
to the Governments of each Country, where
‘ 4 alone they can, or ought to be difcuffed.

If the Spanifh Court, on the reprefen-

tation of thefe Grievous Injuries and

Infults,

4
ait
i

P|

A

( 8 )
Infults; had, without referve, difavowed the

authority under which their Officer pre-
tended to act; and given affurances of

ample Satisfaction, and Recompence for the
Expences, neceflarily incurred for obtaining
that Satisfaction, Then a Negotiation might
have, honourably and becom‘rely, taken
place, for the difcuffion of all claims, and

compenfation for private Loffes.

It would be in the nature of Anticipation
to enter into the Difcuffion of the Spanifh
Memorial at large; but as many affevera-
tions, in It, are not warranted by any
documents we have received, and others
pofitively contradicted by thefe documents,
I am induced to take fome further notice

of that Memorial.

It

Ses

eee te ee

ers

nts,

tice

It

ct
‘
A
ms
hs
“4

le eee

(9 )

It is extraordinary that, in the General
Reference to Treaties under which the
Spaniards form their Claims, and efpecially
to Treaties with Great-Britain, there” fhould
be no particular reference to the Specific
Articles, nor even to the Specific Treaties; to
guide the inquifitive Statefman to the Study
of the Point in queftion: This cannot
convey a favourable impreffion in fupport

of the claim!

It alledges, that to both Courts are wanting
the circumftantial Proofs of what has paffed :
It is not in the nature of Things, that
formal and regular documents of Injuries

can be conveyed, from the injured Subject

to The Parent-State; and if no Reparation
was to be claimed, without that formal
and precife detail of the Injury done, Then

by

( 10 )
by fo much as the Injury was grievous
and oppreffive, by fo much would it be
more difficult, or even impoffible, to ftate
the injury: There are no Letters from
either of The Commanders of the Englith
Veffels; the only inference that can be
drawn is ‘* That They were not allowed to
«© write to their Owners, or that the Letiers,

«¢ which they did write, have been fuppreffed
“‘ by the Spaniards,” and thus what is

alledged as extenuation 1s an aggravation,

But although there are no precife and
authentic documents to fhew ail) that has
pafed, the Teftimonies are unexceptionable,
that the two Veffels beforementioned were
feized, that the Englifh Colours were
ftruck, and the Spanifh Colours hoifted
ever them: that Capt. Colnett was put

in

ae

of
%.
ea
cy
ssh
pe
3
“a
Re
=i,

( im )

in the Stocks, at the fame time that

American Veffels were not only unmolefted,
but treated with all courtefy and refpec
by the Spanifh Officer, who, in compli-
ment to them, celebrated the Anniverfary

of Anglo-American Independance.

Although the Britifh Court has not re-

ceived the ‘ull and exaét account of ail

the Injuries fuffered by Britifh Subjects; It

is very extraordinary indeed that precife
Documents have not been received, by The
Court of Spain; when it is notorious to
all The World with what minute detail all
Incidents are regiftered by their Officers
abroad! The only Inference that caa be

drawn, from fuch an unufual Silence, is, that

The Spanifh Adminiftration abroad was
afhamed of the Conduct of Its Officers;
C and

( 1 )
and that private Affections or Partialities

had fcreened Dilinquency.

The Spanifh Memorial alledges that the
Veffels were only flopt, and not confifcated;
and ambiguoufly implies that they muft
now be releafed, The Viceroy of New
Spain having refolved to releafe them,
either without any Condition, or on the
Captain figning a Declaration of becoming
refponfible in cafe of the Veffel being de-
clared a legal Capture; in the fame man-
ner as a Portuguefe Veffel, and two Ame-

rican Veffels, had been liberated.

That a Veffel, under the Portuguefe Flag,
had been fo liberated is admitted, but the
American Veflels were not ever ftopt or impe-

ded, which the Captain of one of them, the

Columbia,

m= => re

ities

C 13.)
Columbia, faid in China ** He underftood,
“6 was becaufe the Spaniards were afraid of
“© offending the Americans, on account of their
‘* vicinity to the Spanifh Settlements, and

“¢ therefore did not ftop them,”

If I had commanded a Veffel, publickly
equipped for a Voyage to the NW Coatt
of America, I moft certainly, knowing
inyfelf no Smuggler, would have refufed
to have made myfelf refponfible for con- -
fequences, to which the fair and open
purpofe of my Voyage did not expofe
me: If enabled to refft, I would have
refifted if overpowered by force, I would,
by all means poffible in my fituation,

have protefted againit the Act of Violence,

but Y would not have received the Vetfel

C2. back

( 14 )
back, on any Condition of Refponfibility !
It appears to me contrary to the Law
of Nations, and to every Idea of Common
Senfe and Common Juftice, for any Veffel
to be flopped, where the Party fo detaining
has a doubt, of his being warranted in

fuch Detention.

It is alledged, that in the 1ft Communi-
cation from the Spanifh Ambaffador at
the Court of London to the Miniftry
there on the 1oth of February, he could
not fpecify many of the circumftances now
know::, nor the repeated Afts of Pofleffion
of Spain, on that Coaft and Port, antece-

dent and fubfequent to thofe then cited,

Not

ility ! q

Law «
mmon a
Veffel
ining

od in

c 5 )

Not knowing what was faid in the
Communication of the 10th February, nor
what «dts of Pofefion are now. referred to,
I can only fay, that there is every evidence,
the Nature of the Cafe is capable of
admitting, to teftify that when Capt. Cook
vifited King-George’s Sound, or Nootka,
in 1778 The Natives were unacquainted
with other Europeans: that it does not
appear any Europeans, befides Englifh, had
been there “till the Trade thither was
carried on by the Englifh from India
and England: and an amicable Intercourfe

with the Natives eftablifhed.

It is alledged, that if The Court of
London, at the time of replying to this
Communication of Friendly Complaint,

given

( 16 )
given in the name of the King of Spain,
againft Navigators which Spain reckoned
contraband by the fubfifting Treaties, had
ated confonant to the defire now mani-
fefted to examine and accommodate thefe
difputes amicably, It would have faved

much expence and difguft.

Ignorant as I am of what paffed, on
that occafion, It is impoffible to fay how
far this Complaint of the want of early
Communication is well-grounded: But it
is obvious, that It behoved Spain, if She
thought She had any claims to the ex-
clufive Navigation of thofe Seas, to have
urged fuch Claims amicably to The Court
of Great Britain, and to have communi-

cated Her Intentions to enforce them,

before

C 17)
before Orders were fent to that Effect:

For the Proceedings, warrantable againft
illicit and contraband Trade, are unwarrant-
able againft a fair and open Trade,
avowedly carried on, under the counteriance

and protection of the State.

The Allegation, that the King of Spain
does not mean to extend the pretenfion of

“‘ right to all the South-Seas, even to

<¢ China” But only to ‘* The Sovereignty,

“© Navigation and exclufive Commerce of

“¢ the Continent and Iflands in the South

Sea, in the manner Jt has always been
** aecufomed to underPand the Words in
<* treating of Their Indies,” is not the moft

diftinct and fatisfactory method of ex-

plaining the Extent of their pretenfions:

it

( 18 )
Tt would have been more diftin&, ‘accords
** ing to the acceptation of other Nations,”
inftead of the Senfe They themfelves are ac-
cuftomed to underftand It. Their expofition
of what they mean, viz. “© The Continent,
“¢ Iflands and Seas, which by Difcovery, by
‘© Treaties, and by immemorial poffefions have,
*“‘ and do belong to them, with the
*€ concurrence and confent of all Nations”
leaves the Matter in the fame obfcurity :
Without entering into the claim of Dif-
covery, No Nation, at peace with Spain,
can reafonably difpute ‘* what They have
** by ‘Treaty, and immemorial poffeffion,
*€ with the concurrence and aflent of all
** Nations,” but what they have by Treaty
and by immemorial poffeffion, with the

concurs

co

th

4
hss
%
}
i
os
‘

€ 19 )
concurrence and affent of all Nations, is

a queftion of great extent !

It is faid, that Spain having no fixed
Eftablifhments on any Coaft, Port or Bay,
is no proof, that it is not Theirs. It, at
leat, is certainly no proof, even prefumptive,
that it is! But the Inference, drawn by
the Memorial, does not follow, ‘* that the
** confequence of the former affumption
*¢ would entitle any Nation whatever, to fettle
(74

in the Dominions of another Nation, in

‘© America, Afia, or even in Europe, where

w

‘ there are no fixed Eftablifhments.”

In Europe, every Spot of Land is the par-
ticular property of fome Individual, fubjec
to the Laws of The Country, and protected

D in

( 20 )
in the. property by The State; and
therefore every Spot is appropriate to a
Fixed Eftablifhment, which does not imply,
or require, a Fortification or Place of
Arms. In America, and Afia, there are
many Places in actual and _ individual
poffeffion of the Subjects of European
States, over whom Thefe States exercife
jurifdiction: But, without juri/dictive au-
thority, there can be xo rightful Dominion!
and therefore fuch Places, in America or
Afia as are inhabited by Aborigines, who
do not acknowledge the jurifdiction of
any European Power, muft be free to
whatever Friendly intercourfe they may be
inclined to admit, without the breach of
any fubfifting Treaty, or The Law of
Nations: Not to mention that the Con-
duct

Lx

imply,
ace of
re are
ividual
lropean
*xercife
ve au-
ninion !
rica or
» who
ion of
ree to
1ay be
ach of
aw of

Con-

duct

€ 2 )
duct of Spain, and other Powers, in the

Conteft between Great Britain and Her

American Colonies, has decided, as far as
fuch Conduct could decide, that whenever
if Subjects, having taken up arms, avow
and are able to maintain their Independance,
that then Their a&tual Independance is to be

acknowledged by all Nations!